Post on 11-Aug-2020
transcript
Recovery Implementation Teams Fall Call/Webinar
March 2014
May 2014
Summer 2014
November 2014
Feb/March 2015
TBD 2015
March 2014-March 2015
RIT Timeline & Next Steps
Circulate table for reconciliation of
Recovery Action Plan footnotes
You are here
MOG Meeting December 18
2-Page Project Concept Proposals
Purpose of 2-Page Project Concept Proposals: To create site-specific and cost-specific project proposals tiered off a priority 1 action in Recovery Action Plan
2-Page Project Concept Proposals
DTRO received a total of 50 project proposals from 22 RIT members (plus 5 already-funded projects from Clark County)
• 37 complete proposals -Some are more shovel-ready than others-
• 3 with no budget • 9 multi-workgroup or non-specific proposals which
didn’t really tier off Recovery Action Plans (plus 2 duplicates)
• 1 research proposal All proposals are posted at: http://www.fws.gov/nevada/desert_tortoise/dtro/dtro_rits.html
2 Page Project Concept Proposals: Sept 2014
26
15
9
Number of Proposals by RIT Membership
Number of Proposals by Workgroup 11
10
5
2
4
9 9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
CA Desert NE Mojave UVR
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2-Page Project Concept Proposals: Sept 2014
Where each proposal would actually be implemented
Several of these are “programmatic”
proposals
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2 Page Project Concept Proposals: Sept 2014
Types of RIT Proposals
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Multi-workgroup/ non-specific
UVR
NE Mojave
CA Desert
SDSS Rank of Proposal
2 Page Project Concept Proposals: Sept 2014
SDSS Rank of RIT Proposals
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Multi-workgroup/non-specific
UVR
NE Mojave
CA Desert
8 proposals < $50K < 7 proposals
2-Page Project Concept Proposals: Sept 2014
RIT Proposals by Budget Request
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
$5-100K $100-200K $200-400K $400-500K $500K-1M $1-2.5M
Multi-workgroup/non-specific
UVR
NE Mojave
CA Desert
Discussion Questions
• What should we present to the MOG about project concepts?
• What additional coordination is needed for action implementation?
• Are there project concepts from other RITs that are relevant to your RIT?
• Do you have any projects with broad support that need immediate funding and implementation?
• Are there any ideas for specific funding opportunities?
• Any other observations?
Reconciliation of Action Plan Footnotes
Purpose of reconciliation exercise: To facilitate clean-up of footnotes and promote discussion for Recovery Action Plan v2
Recovery Action Plan Footnotes
10
3 0
34
6
29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
CA Desert NE Mojave UVR
RIT members who providedcomments
Number of RIT Members
Who Provided Comments in Spreadsheet for Footnote Reconciliation
Recovery Action Plan Footnotes
Total RAP footnotes and actions by RIT
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
CA Desert NE Mojave UVR
Total number of footnotes
Total number of actions
4
365 382
63 36 38
Recovery Action Plan Footnotes
19 17
4 4
36 38
Unique Footnote Topics by RIT
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
CA Desert NE Mojave UVR
Unique footnote topics
Total number of footnotes
Recovery Action Plan Footnotes
All Unique Footnote Topics
Unreconiled
Reconcilable
Comment Only
8 12
19
8 Unreconciled Footnote Topics
1. Grazing: Not shown to be deleterious to tortoise populations; can contribute to fuel management; need to evaluate effects of livestock removal on tortoise habitat 11 footnotes (RIT priority 1,2,3)
2. Grazing: No data showing grazing benefits tortoises; known impacts 4 (1,2,3)
3. Herbicides should not be used in habitat restoration 4 (1,2)
4. Mining: No evidence of deleterious effects on the tortoise 3 (2,3)
5. Complicated restoration proposal not feasible (watering, containerized plants); problems with herbicide; BFOD still too experimental 1 (2)
6. Fiber optic line near Corn Creek Road does not warrant restoration 1 (3)
7. Fencing Red-Rock Randsburg, Garlock, & Randsburg-Mojave roads not worth investment 1 (3)
8. Fencing Red Hills Parkway: significant cost; bad PR; neither UDOT nor St. George would agree since have complied with their agreement 1 (2)
Discussion Questions
• What should we present to the MOG about footnote reconciliation?
• What are your thoughts about the reconciliation exercise?
• Are there any issues with the recommendations provided in the spreadsheet?
• Are there any outstanding dissent issues relative to any of the 2-page project concept proposals?
Final Discussion Questions
• Are there any other RIT topics you would like to discuss?
• Is there anything else the MOG should be aware of that you would like us to bring to the Dec meeting?
• What would you like to see happen between now and our next meeting?
MOG Meeting March 2014
RIT Call Summer 2014
RIT Call Nov 2014
RIT Call Feb/March
2015
MOG Meeting TBD 2015
MOG Meeting December 18